Trespassing definition needs to be changed if being used against us

[Danielle Wright]

According to the currently posted laws:

Trespassing - "Entering the property of an individual without permission"

Last night, I was stopped in my van for being in a building near the docks, which led to a charge, searching of my vehicle, loss of a lot of items and probable seizure of vehicle. I was told there were "no trespassing" signs around. However, these exist multiple areas within our city. So, if this truly is going be a charge used against us, this wording needs to be updated as in my mind, this means entering someone's home. Businesses which are not actually owned by people do not apply (in my eyes at least) as "individuals". This is opening up cops being able to basically stop you and search you for being in A LOT of places within the city. In my opinion.

 

[StareDown]

+1 to clarifying the wording on Trespassing. However, other things in civilian rights do say crimes against Locals (such as assault) can and will be levied against someone, so in that same mind it can apply as the current wording, however it is still pretty vague.

[dK_]

Locals count as people too if it’s a local owned business with posted no trespassing signs then they count as any other player owner business, the vagueness is intentional I believe and opens up more opportunity for deeper RP as I’m taking things to court for a decision.

[Diesel]

4 hours ago, Richie Jax said:

Locals count as people too if it’s a local owned business with posted no trespassing signs then they count as any other player owner business, the vagueness is intentional I believe and opens up more opportunity for deeper RP as I’m taking things to court for a decision.

I agree with Jax and this is actually in the Civilian Rights 

1. "private business" - Any business owned or leased by any individual in the State of San Andreas

this links a "Private Business" to an individual 

[Danielle Wright]

so

On 4/14/2022 at 6:05 PM, Steve Price said:

I agree with Jax and this is actually in the Civilian Rights 

1. "private business" - Any business owned or leased by any individual in the State of San Andreas

this links a "Private Business" to an individual 

so then.. every business location in this city, counts as this.. which gives cops the right to stop and search you? which means, pretty much... everywhere a building exists?

Edited April 17, 2022 by Danielle Thompson

[Mia]

I think there's a few different points to address with this and will try to discuss without giving away meta info of the situation leading to this post.

 

Firstly yes, even a 'local' building can apply under the current wording as yes, we don't want to make the distinction between a player and ai during roleplay cause that is very unimmerisve. Just the way punching a local should be no less than punching a player, or a local car unobtainable through a dealership should not automatically be assumed is stolen.

 

I think there is a common sense distinction to apply between a property that is clearly private with no trespassing signs and a business where it's obvious a player is invited to go as a customer. Police use the spirit of the law in determining whether a detainment and search is warranted or not. As examples, should a regular citizen be in an AI clothing store? Yes. Should a known felon with a balaclava on be behind the teller's counter of a bank? No. From your particular situation, it is my understanding that there was no story or possibly plausible rp excuse given by your character for being in a place that is clearly highly controlled and not open to the public, signage included.

 

Where PC to search is provided, I find that the use of trespassing in this scenario was very much like misdemeanor speeding. The police almost never search a vehicle and driver for misd speeding unless there are other factors involved.

 

In this case, there was a big one which you may not be aware of in or out of character. OOC I would ask yourself why this time, out of all the times your characters have been on private property, a search was conducted. Is it because they are trying to deny you rights or because they have good reason to believe there is something highly illegal going on? Were they right?

In all the time this law has existed  I have not seen an example brought forward where police have been 'abusing' this charge. If there have been other examples, feel free to let me know. Open to discuss further and bring it up as a topic for DOJ.